From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perrine v. Hafeman

COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW JERSEY
Nov 1, 1926
134 A. 860 (Ch. Div. 1926)

Opinion

11-01-1926

PERRINE v. HAFEMAN.

Aaron V. Dawes, of Trenton, for complainant.


(Syllabus by the Court.)

Suit by Runey D. Perrine against Ernest Hafeman for an injunction. On complainant's motion for final decree. Decree granted.

Aaron V. Dawes, of Trenton, for complainant.

WALKER, Chancellor, The bill of complaint prayed for an injunction, and was verified by affidavits and an exhibit annexed. On it an order was made requiring the defendant to show cause why an injunction should not issue according to the prayer of the bill, and, on its return, the defendant appearing in person, but showing nothing to the contrary, the order to show cause was made absolute, and defendant was therein restrained.

Now counsel for the complainant moves for a final decree on the case-made on the affidavits annexed to the bill. It will be granted. A decree pro confesso has already been entered. That decree might have contained an award of a permanent injunction, and thus have been a final decree.

The Chancery Act (P. L. 1902, p. 510, § 23; 1 Comp. St. 1910, p. 418, § 23) provides that, if the defendant does not answer, the bill shall be taken as confessed against him, and such decree made thereon as by the court shall be deemed equitable and just, or the chancellor may, at his discretion, order the complainant to produce documents and witnesses to substantiate and prove the allegations in the bill, or he may examine the complainant on oath or affirmation for the same purpose. Ordinarily, when a decree is taken pro confesso against a defendant, an order for proofs is made, and this is generally included in thedecree pro con. See the form in Dick, Ch. Pr. (Rev. Ed.) p. 170. When an order for proofs is entered, the solicitor of the complainant goes before any master in chancery, who takes the depositions and forwards them to the court with such exhibits as may be offered, but without any report.

Whenever, however, preliminary relief is granted on a bill or petition with affidavits annexed, and the defendant does not answer, but defaults in pleading, a decree pro confesso against him may include a decree for the relief prayed in the bill or petition, or a final decree may be made thereafter, without the taking of further proofs. Chancellor Pitney adopted this practice, and I have followed it several times.

Final decree accordingly.


Summaries of

Perrine v. Hafeman

COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW JERSEY
Nov 1, 1926
134 A. 860 (Ch. Div. 1926)
Case details for

Perrine v. Hafeman

Case Details

Full title:PERRINE v. HAFEMAN.

Court:COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW JERSEY

Date published: Nov 1, 1926

Citations

134 A. 860 (Ch. Div. 1926)